fs_rename

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rename-in-place behavior and the basename constraint, but does not mention overwrite behavior, error conditions, permissions, or side effects—important gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the only added constraint earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity two-parameter tool, the description gives the essential rename-in-place semantics and a critical parameter constraint. With no annotations, though, an agent still lacks guidance on overwrite behavior and failure modes, making this minimally viable rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for new_name by requiring a basename, and 'in place' clarifies that path is the source directory. However, path semantics are not directly described beyond this inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Rename'), a resource ('file'), and a precise scope ('in place'). It also adds the key constraint that new_name must be a basename, which distinguishes it from a move operation and from the sibling tool fs_move.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'in place' and the basename constraint imply this tool is for renaming within the same directory rather than moving files. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over fs_move or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.